Case Digest (G.R. No. 38069)
Facts:
Esperanza Dimaliwat, Candida Moreno, and Manuel Moreno v. Dominga Asuncion et al., G.R. No. 38069, January 20, 1934, the Supreme Court, Vickers, J., writing for the Court (Street, Abad Santos, Butte, and Diaz, JJ., concurring). The appeal arose from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija that ordered amendments to Plan Psu No. 18817 and decreed the subdivision and registration of Lot No. 3 into parcels 3‑A, 3‑B and 3‑C, specifying ownership shares among the applicants and various heirs and subjecting certain portions to a mortgage in favor of Lucia Matias, viuda de Tinio.The petitioners (applicants), Esperanza Dimaliwat, Candida Moreno, and Manuel Moreno, appealed portions of the trial court’s decree, particularly as to Lot No. 3‑C. Opponent‑appellant Vicenta Dimaliwat, judicial administratrix of the estate of Eustacio Dimaliwat, also appealed limited aspects of the judgment (chiefly the mortgage encumbrance and the adjudication of lots 4, 5 and 6). The petitioners advanced assignments of error arguing, inter alia, that the trial court erred by refusing to treat the authenticity of a priest’s signature and earlier adjudications (cited as Vicenta Dimaliwat v. Esperanza Dimaliwat, G.R. No. 33590) as res judicata and by not declaring Esperanza the lawful heir to Lot No. 3‑C irrespective of a deed of assignment (Exhibit 2).
The lower court had also resolved other ownership disputes over lots 4, 5 and 6 in favor of Esperanza and her children. The parties recited a complex history: Eustacio Dimaliwat married three times; his children by the first marriage were Esperanza and Teofilo; by the third marriage were Vicenta, Vicentica and Josefina. Earlier proceedings (Court of First Instance case No. 5070, affirmed by this Court in Dimaliwat v. Dimaliwat, 55 Phil. 673) had established that Esperanza and Teofilo acquired title to Lot No. 3‑C by adverse possession (acquisitive prescription). Various documents were in evidence or contention: a 1905 purported donation from Eustacio to Esperanza and Teofilo, a 1914 deed of sale from Eustacio to Teofilo (Exhibit 3), a 1927 conveyance by Teofilo to several siblings (Exhibit 4), Eustacio’s will of October 27, 1928 (Exhibit 16), and a purported offer/partition by Esperanza in August 1928 (Exhibit 18).
This case reached the Supreme Court by appeal from the Court of First Instance’s decision. The Supreme Court reviewed assignments of error, the appl...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the trial court required to treat the authenticity of the priest Teofilo Dimaliwat’s signature in Exhibit 2 and the earlier judgment in G.R. No. 33590 as res judicata on the title to Lot No. 3‑C?
- Did the lower court err in failing to treat the prior judgment as a conclusive adjudication of the parties’ rights in Lot No. 3‑C?
- Is Esperanza Dimaliwat entitled, as a matter of substantive law, to ownership of Lot No. 3‑C to the exclusion of the children of Eustacio’s third marriage despite the deed(s) and instruments cited by opponents?
- Should the portion of Lot No. 3‑C (or any interest therein) be made subject to the mortgage in favor of Lucia Matias, viuda de Tinio?
- Were the trial court’s factual findings adjudicating lots 4, 5 and 6 to the petitioners properly su...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)